Vestibular Dysfunction and Postural Changes in Children With Congenital Cytomegalovirus: A Systematic Review.

Evidence Evaluation Process and Management of Potential Conflicts of Interest: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

Performing and evaluating meta-analyses

Energy drinks (EDs) are beverages that contain ingredients that may pose a risk to consumers' cardiovascular health. But current evidence is conflicting and warrants further investigation. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on studies that examined the acute effects of ED consumption on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), resting heart rate, cardiac output (CO), endothelial function, and QT/QTc interval in healthy adults. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, LILACS, Web of Science, SportDiscus, and the gray literature were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent evaluators screened 2014 studies and extracted relevant data from those selected for the analysis. A risk of bias assessment was also performed with the RoB 2 tool and a strength of evidence assessment was performed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A total of 17 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. With regard to risk of bias, 11 studies were rated as having "some concerns" and 6 as "high risk of bias." The consumption of EDs increased SBP, DBP, and CO in different time frames. More pronounced effects were seen on SBP at 60-80 minutes (4.71 mmHg; 95% CI: 2.97-6.45; GRADE: moderate), DBP at 120 minutes (4.51 mmHg; 95% CI: 2.60-6.42; GRADE: low), and CO at 30-40 minutes after consumption (0.43 L; 95% CI: 0.08-0.77; GRADE: very low). The effects of ED consumption on resting heart rate and QT/QTc interval were not significant (P ≤ 0.05). The assessment of endothelial function effects was not performed due to the absence of any RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria. Acute consumption of EDs increases SBP, DBP, and CO in healthy adults. However, no alterations were observed in other cardiovascular parameters. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies included in the analysis. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022295335.

The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis to prevent the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2013. To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause death in solid organ transplant recipients. We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 February 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications or different regimens of the same antiviral medications for CMV prophylaxis in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection are studied in a separate review and were excluded from this review. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This 2024 update found four new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 41 (5054 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear across most studies, with a low risk of bias for sequence generation (12), allocation concealment (12), blinding (11) and selective outcome reporting (9) in fewer studies. There is high-certainty evidence that prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment is more effective in preventing CMV disease (19 studies: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), all-cause death (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92), and CMV infection (17 studies: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). There is moderate-certainty evidence that prophylaxis probably reduces death from CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduces the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but probably makes little to no difference to fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. No apparent differences in adverse events with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment were found. There is high certainty evidence that ganciclovir, when compared with aciclovir, is more effective in preventing CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). There may be little to no difference in any outcome between valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir (low certainty evidence). The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir or ganciclovir were probably no different to valaciclovir in three studies (moderate certainty evidence). There is moderate certainty evidence that extended duration prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with three months of therapy (2 studies: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35), with probably little to no difference in rates of adverse events. Low certainty evidence suggests that 450 mg/day valganciclovir compared with 900 mg/day valganciclovir results in little to no difference in all-cause death, CMV infection, acute rejection, and graft loss (no information on adverse events). Maribavir may increase CMV infection compared with ganciclovir (1 study: RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.65; moderate certainty evidence); however, little to no difference between the two treatments were found for CMV disease, all-cause death, acute rejection, and adverse events at six months (low certainty evidence). Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated death, compared with placebo or no treatment, in solid organ transplant recipients. These data support the continued routine use of antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-positive recipients and CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive organ transplants.

Orthodontic treatment often lasts around 20 months, and prolonged duration increases the risk of adverse events. Physical adjunctive interventions (PAIs) are proposed to accelerate tooth movement, but their efficacy remains uncertain. This umbrella review synthesized systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on PAIs published through March 2025 (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library). Review quality was appraised with the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tools. Study overlap was quantified using the corrected Graphical Representation of Overlap for Overviews (GROOVE) method. Risk of bias in the primary studies was reassessed, when required, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Certainty of evidence was rated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Random-effects models were used when statistical heterogeneity was substantial (I 2 > 50%); otherwise, fixed-effects models were used. Effect estimates are reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seventeen systematic reviews (12 meta-analyses, 5 narrative) covering 76 RCTs were included. Vibration devices showed minimal or no clinically significant acceleration: leveling/alignment MD = 0.05 mm (95% CI: -0.38 to 0.49), canine retraction + 0.27 mm/month (95% CI: 0.19-0.35), en-masse retraction + 0.19 mm/month (95% CI: -0.25 to 0.63) (GRADE: moderate-very low). Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) shortened alignment by -58.4 days (95% CI: -88.6 to -28.2) and, in maxillary extraction, by -28 days (95% CI: -39 to -17), with early canine retraction gains (95% CI: +0.31 to +0.27 mm/month) (GRADE: moderate-very low). Light-emitting diode (LED) therapy showed + 0.005 mm/day (95% CI: -0.001 to 0.012) with small, non-significant monthly estimates (GRADE: low-very low). Bioelectric stimulation (BES) added + 1.78 mm at 3 months (95% CI: 0.99-2.57) (GRADE: low). Overall, methodological quality varied widely, with most reviews rated low to critically low by AMSTAR-2 and at high risk of bias by ROBIS. Vibration should not be the primary accelerator. Photobiomodulation (PBM) is the most promising clinical option, but it requires standardized protocols (wavelength, dose, schedule). BES is promising yet underpowered. Registration: PROSPERO CRD420251043659.

IntroductionEfforts to harmonize health technology assessment (HTA) processes and methods across Europe are currently intensified. In this context, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach has been proposed as a “common ground” in joint HTAs. However, GRADE has been primarily developed to support authors of clinical guidelines. Therefore, it is unclear whether HTA reports based on GRADE are compatible with the methods currently applied by European HTA organizations.MethodsWe contrasted IQWiG's methods paper and publications by the GRADE Working Group with regard to the following domains: 1) risk of bias (RoB) assessment 2) prerequisites for “greater benefit” (assuming that IQWiG's “greater benefit” corresponds to a GRADE assessment of at least low certainty and a small important effect) and 3) consideration of non-randomized studies (NRS). We present illustrative differences and highlight similarities.ResultsOverall, RoB assessments are very similar under both approaches. However, we identified several important differences. In case of very severe publication bias, IQWiG methods preclude drawing a conclusion, whereas GRADE requires only downgrading the certainty of evidence while still allowing for a conclusion on effect sizes. Secondly, IQWiG generally requires a statistically significant effect for a “greater benefit”, while GRADE does not (statistically non-significant effects would only necessitate downgrading the certainty of results for imprecision). Another difference is that in general, NRS are not included in IQWiG assessments when randomized studies (RS) are available and thus possible. In contrast, preliminary GRADE guidance recommends considering NRS in addition to RS when the RS evidence is of low or very low certainty.ConclusionsWhile GRADE and IQWiG's method share some similarities, our exemplary analysis shows that there are some notable differences. Therefore, GRADE should not be used “out of the box” for European HTAs. To foster further discussion, more research (including a comprehensive comparison of methods and an analysis of resources for adaptation) is needed.

Objectives New types of treatments have emerged, such as non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), to treat chronic vestibular dysfunction (VD). Considering that NIBS is a promising approach to reduce VD symptoms, this review was aimed to analyze the effects of NIBS in patients with VD. Methods We adhered to the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Intervention Reviews. The eligibility criteria were as follows: (a) individuals with vestibulopathy having clinical and neuroimaging; (b) Interventions: non-invasive brain stimulation, this intervention comprised transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS); (c) Control: any comparison or sham; and (d) Outcomes: dizziness and balance. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies from July 2004 to February 2020. We searched the PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Ovid databases. Two pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts. Two authors assessed the risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Results We identified 136 studies, and included two studies. Both studies used tDCS application. One study used anodal cerebellar tDCS or sham at 2 mA for 25 min associated with vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT), and the other study used anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (F3) for 25–30 min associated with VRT at home. Both studies showed clinical improvement in the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC), and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores. Both studies presented higher-quality evidence on the GRADE scale and a low risk of bias. Conclusions Based on two studies, anodal tDCS over F3 or the cerebellum associated with VRT improved chronic vestibular symptoms.

The Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA) results in disabilities of paretic limbs, but few studies have investigated the impacts of CVA on perception deficits as well as related functional changes. Motor function alterations caused by CVA, such as the presence of associated reactions, loss of postural control mechanisms, and tone disorders, shift the body's center of gravity, generating a risk of falls. The aim of the present study was to evaluate postural balance changes in patients affected by CVA using the POMA-Brazil Scale (Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment). A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess postural balance changes in patients diagnosed with CVA undergoing rehabilitation at the UNIT Health Center, CEMISE Physiotherapy Service, and Maria Virgínia Leite Franco Rehabilitation Center in Aracaju, Sergipe. The B-POMA subscale consists of 13 tasks (sitting balance, rising from a chair, immediate standing balance, standing balance, eyes closed balance, 360-degree turning balance, resistance to displacement (Nudge Test), neck turning, unipedal stance balance, spinal extension, reaching upward, leaning forward, and sitting), aimed at detecting fall risk factors in elderly individuals with disabilities or chronic illnesses. Descriptive statistics were used for numerical variables, frequency distribution for demographic and clinical variables, and individuals per task, with the application of the chi-square test and the Student's t-test. Among the tasks measured according to the B-POMA subscale, sitting balance was the most frequent qualitative response (97.5%), followed by immediate standing, eyes closed, and leaning forward. Unipedal stance balance was the least common normal task (25%), and 360-degree turning was the most adaptive (62.5%). Balance changes are associated with cerebral vascular accidents in terms of dynamic equilibrium. This study demonstrated that unipedal stance balance was the most affected task, 360-degree turning balance was the most adaptive, and sitting balance was the least affected. There were no significant differences in balance scores based on sex, age, and time of injury.

BackgroundHeart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B‐type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance.ObjectivesTo assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone.Search methodsSearches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of s of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials of NP‐guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow‐up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in‐hospital and out‐of‐hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.Main resultsWe included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP‐guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all‐cause mortality using NP‐guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP‐guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all‐cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP‐guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD ‐0.03, 95% CI ‐1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies.Authors' conclusionsIn patients with heart failure low‐quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP‐guided treatment while low‐quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP‐guided treatment for all‐cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all‐cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low‐quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.

Management of Mental Health Disorders, Substance Use Disorders, and Suicide in Adults with Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical Practice Guideline for Healthcare Providers.

To evaluate the methodological quality of recent systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy in order to determine the level of confidence in the reviews' conclusions. A comprehensive search of 22 databases identified eligible systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis published worldwide from 2015 to 2019. We independently extracted data and used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to appraise methodological quality. Eighty-three systematic reviews met strict eligibility criteria. Most were from Europe and Latin America and reported on rehabilitative interventions. AMSTAR-2 appraisal found critically low confidence in 88% (n=73) because of multiple and varied deficiencies. Only 7% (n=6) had no AMSTAR-2 critical domain deficiency. The number of systematic reviews increased fivefold from 2015 to 2019; however, quality did not improve over time. Most of these systematic reviews are considered unreliable according to AMSTAR-2. Current recommendations for treating children with CP based on these flawed systematic reviews need re-evaluation. Findings are comparable to reports from other areas of medicine, despite the general perception that systematic reviews are high-level evidence. The required use of current widely accepted guidance for conducting and reporting systematic reviews by authors, peer reviewers, and editors is critical to ensure reliable, unbiased, and transparent systematic reviews. What this paper adds Confidence was critically low in the conclusions of 88% of systematic reviews about interventions for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Quality issues in the sample were not limited to systematic reviews of non-randomized trials, or to those about certain populations of CP or interventions. The inclusion of meta-analysis did not improve the level of confidence in these systematic reviews. Numbers of systematic reviews on this topic increased over the 5 search years but their methodological quality did not improve.

The use of immunotherapies for recurrent miscarriage: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

AGA Rapid Recommendations for Gastrointestinal Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The aim of this systematic review was to answer the focused question, "Is there an association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and alcohol, caffeine or tobacco use?" Five electronic databases (Cinahl, Literatura Latth American and Caribbean, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and 3 grey literature (Google Acadêmico, ProQuest, OpenGrey) were searched, as well as search on reference list of included papers and contacts with study authors. Observational studies were included. The Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (MAStARI) tool assessed the potential risk of bias (RoB) among the studies, while the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach determined the level of evidence. Meta-Analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software. Among 3,442 identified studies, 14 were included. Eleven studies were classified as moderate RoB and 3 as high RoB. Meta-analysis showed OSA has no association with tobacco and presented a positive association with alcohol. The odds ratio for OSA increased almost 1.33 times (95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.10-1.62) for alcohol users. There was insufficient published data to evaluate whether OSA is associated with caffeine. The overall quality of evidence ranged from low to very low. OSA was associated with the use of alcohol, however there is not enough evidence to confirm the association with tobacco or caffeine. Due to the very low GRADE level of evidence, caution should be applied when considering these findings.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a painful and disabling condition that usually manifests in response to trauma or surgery. When it occurs, it is associated with significant pain and disability. It is thought to arise and persist as a consequence of a maladaptive pro-inflammatory response and disturbances in sympathetically-mediated vasomotor control, together with maladaptive peripheral and central neuronal plasticity. CRPS can be classified into two types: type I (CRPS I) in which a specific nerve lesion has not been identified, and type II (CRPS II) where there is an identifiable nerve lesion. Guidelines recommend the inclusion of a variety of physiotherapy interventions as part of the multimodal treatment of people with CRPS, although their effectiveness is not known. To determine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for treating the pain and disability associated with CRPS types I and II. We searched the following databases from inception up to 12 February 2015: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDro, Web of Science, DARE and Health Technology Assessments, without language restrictions, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physiotherapy interventions for treating pain and disability in people CRPS. We also searched additional online sources for unpublished trials and trials in progress. We included RCTs of physiotherapy interventions (including manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, electrotherapy, physiotherapist-administered education and cortically directed sensory-motor rehabilitation strategies) employed in either a stand-alone fashion or in combination, compared with placebo, no treatment, another intervention or usual care, or of varying physiotherapy interventions compared with each other in adults with CRPS I and II. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient-centred outcomes of pain intensity and functional disability. Two review authors independently evaluated those studies identified through the electronic searches for eligibility and subsequently extracted all relevant data from the included RCTs. Two review authors independently performed 'Risk of bias' assessments and rated the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 18 RCTs (739 participants) that tested the effectiveness of a broad range of physiotherapy-based interventions. Overall, there was a paucity of high quality evidence concerning physiotherapy treatment for pain and disability in people with CRPS I. Most included trials were at 'high' risk of bias (15 trials) and the remainder were at 'unclear' risk of bias (three trials). The quality of the evidence was very low or low for all comparisons, according to the GRADE approach.We found very low quality evidence that graded motor imagery (GMI; two trials, 49 participants) may be useful for improving pain (0 to 100 VAS) (mean difference (MD) -21.00, 95% CI -31.17 to -10.83) and functional disability (11-point numerical rating scale) (MD 2.30, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.48), at long-term (six months) follow-up, in people with CRPS I compared to usual care plus physiotherapy; very low quality evidence that multimodal physiotherapy (one trial, 135 participants) may be useful for improving 'impairment' at long-term (12 month) follow-up compared to a minimal 'social work' intervention; and very low quality evidence that mirror therapy (two trials, 72 participants) provides clinically meaningful improvements in pain (0 to 10 VAS) (MD 3.4, 95% CI -4.71 to -2.09) and function (0 to 5 functional ability subscale of the Wolf Motor Function Test) (MD -2.3, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.72) at long-term (six month) follow-up in people with CRPS I post stroke compared to placebo (covered mirror).There was low to very low quality evidence that tactile discrimination training, stellate ganglion block via ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy compared to placebo, and manual lymphatic drainage combined with and compared to either anti-inflammatories and physical therapy or exercise are not effective for treating pain in the short-term in people with CRPS I. Laser therapy may provide small clinically insignificant, short-term, improvements in pain compared to interferential current therapy in people with CRPS I.Adverse events were only rarely reported in the included trials. No trials including participants with CRPS II met the inclusion criteria of this review. The best available data show that GMI and mirror therapy may provide clinically meaningful improvements in pain and function in people with CRPS I although the quality of the supporting evidence is very low. Evidence of the effectiveness of multimodal physiotherapy, electrotherapy and manual lymphatic drainage for treating people with CRPS types I and II is generally absent or unclear. Large scale, high quality RCTs are required to test the effectiveness of physiotherapy-based interventions for treating pain and disability of people with CRPS I and II. Implications for clinical practice and future research are considered.